By Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues, Jürgen Graf-

Our answer to the paper “Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard,” which was authored by the above-mentioned five gentlemen, is now ready. It is much longer than originally planned (about 800 pages). As one of Mattogno’s chapters still has to be translated into English, we will not be able to publish our text before January.

12 December 2012

by Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, and Thomas Kues

In late December 2011, we received a long text entitled Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues. The authors are  Jonathan Harrison, Roberto Muehlenkamp, Jason Myers, Sergey Romanov and Nicholas Terry. The object of their critique are the following three books:

• Mattogno, Carlo, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, Theses & Dissertation Press, Chicago 2004.
• Mattogno, Carlo, Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research and History, Theses & Dissertation Press, Chicago 2004.
• Graf, Jürgen, Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno, Sobibór. Holocaust Propaganda and Reality, The Barnes Review, Washington DC 2010. (Read more…)

By Carlo Mattogno-

Smith’s Report no. 185 of October 2011 published an article by Arthur Butz entitled “Two Cutting-Edge Works of Holocaust Revisionism“ (pp. 3-7).[i] It was a review of Samuel Crowell’s recent book The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes, and Other Writings on the Holocaust, Revisionism, and Historical Understanding (Nine-Banded Books, Charleston, WV, 2011), and of my own Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity (The Barnes Review, Washington, 2010), which is the American edition of Le camere a gas di Auschwitz (Effepi, Genoa, 2009).

(Read more…)

On 27 January 2010 this blog carried a chapter-by-chapter presentation of the most extensive  revisionist study on Auschwitz to date,  Le camere a gas di Auschwitz. Studio storico-tecnico sugli “indizi criminali” di Jean-Claude Pressac e sulla “convergenza di prove” di Robert Jan van Pelt by Carlo Mattogno (Effepi, Genoa 2009). We are happy to inform our readers that this formidable study is now available for order in English translation from TBR Books as Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity. A Historical & Technical Study of Jean-Claude Pressac’s Criminal Traces and Robert Jan van Pelt’s Convergence of Evidence (being volume 22 of the Holocaust Handbooks  series). Due to its length (756 pages) it has been divided into two volumes sold as a set. Carlo Mattogno’s Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity is available from the online CODOH bookstore and will be stocked from 1 December.

By Carlo Mattogno

In my study Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term[1] I have written as follows:

«“Special Units” of the Crematoria
Danuta Czech explains the origin and meaning of the term “Sonderkommando” (special unit) as follows:
“The extermination camp created also one other group of people, those who were forced to work in the crematoria and gas chambers – the unfortunate people were assigned to the work of the special unit. The SS used code words if they spoke about the mass extermination of those ‘unworthy of life.’ It called the mass extermination as well as the transports leading
to selection ‘special treatment’ (often abbreviated as SB). Thus, also, the expression ‘special unit.’”
In other words, since criminal activity described by the code word ‘special treatment’ was allegedly being conducted in the crematoria, the staff employed there had of necessity to be a ‘special unit.’ Naturally it was the only work unit at Auschwitz that merited the prefix ‘special’ [sonder] – otherwise the word would have lost the criminal significance that it possessed according to official historiography.
Based on the documents, the reality is entirely different. First of all, the expression ‘special unit’ does not appear in a single document referring to the crematoria. In its ‘magnum opus’ the Auschwitz museum attempted to prove, on the basis of two documents, that this term was used for the crematoria personnel. The first document is a duty roster for July 18, 1944 [”Dienstplan für Dienstag”, dated 17 July], the second order no. 8/43 of April 20, 1943 from the Commandant’s Headquarters. But the first document merely mentions the term ‘special unit’ in connection with a gate control [Torkontrolle]»

Here a correction is necessary. (Read more…)

By Carlo Mattogno

It is an acknowledged fact that Holocaust historiography reached its peak in 2002 and has since begun a gradual and inexorable decline. Revisionist historiography, by contrast, has flourished in the last decade. As for myself, I have in this time published a dozen studies, the most recent being Auschwitz: assistenza sanitaria, “selezione” e “Sonderbehandlung” dei detenuti immatricolati (“Auschwitz: sanitary service, ‘selections’ and ‘special treatment’ of registered inmates, Effepi, Genoa 2010), in which I have dealt with all the basic aspects of the Auschwitz camp. (Read more…)

By Carlo Mattogno

In a discussion of my study Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term (Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004), Holocaust blogger Sergey Romanov puts forth the following critique:

«Mattogno discusses lots of Auschwitz documents which contain the code words, and an unsuspecting reader might be duped into believing that Mattogno really did discuss (and rip to shreds) all the Auschwitz-related documentary evidence containing the code words. However, Mattogno deceptively omits the most crucial source on the use of the code word»

He concludes:

«Therefore, by omitting any mention of these prominent documents Carlo Mattogno has engaged in a gross and unforgivable deception. We hope to treat Mattogno’s other arguments from this and other books in the future, but it has already been established that one cannot rely on him to present the evidence fairly».[1]

(Read more…)

By Carlo Mattogno

Two important document sources to which I have had access recently prompt me to write a sequel, with some revisions, to the two articles I have published earlier on the present subject [1], in order to bring the matter up to date.

1) The accusations of Miklos Grüner

In his book Stolen Identity. Auschwitz Number A-7713 [2], Miklos Grüner, a Hungarian Jew and former deportee to Auschwitz (ID number A-11104) and to Buchenwald (120762), accuses Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize laureate of 1986, to have appropriated the identity of another Hungarian Jewish inmate of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, Lazar Wiesel, as well as the Yiddish publication Un di velt hot geschwign (And the world remained silent) which Lazar Wiesel published in Buenos Aires in 1956. Grüner’s account contains a sizable documentation, parts of which are new, although it must be said that the author’s interpretation of some of these documents appears somewhat questionable.
(Read more…)

By Carlo Mattogno

After the publication of my article Elie Wiesel: “The Most Authoritative Living Witness” of The Shoah?[1] I learned about a Hungarian website on which Miklòs Grüner has compiled a substantial documentation regarding this subject.[2] Grüner has, for years, made highly commendable efforts to ascertain Elie Wiesel’s personality, but his work has been passed by for too long.

I will not go into Grüner’s denouncements of identity theft on the part of the Nobel laureate, levelled against various authorities and will limit myself to the corresponding documents.
(Read more…)

By Carlo Mattogno

On 27 January 2010, the tenth “Holocaust Remembrance Day”, Elie Wiesel was invited into Montecitorio Hall, the seat of the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian Republic where he had the opportunity to give a brief speech. The president of the Chamber, Gianfranco Fini, introduced him as “the most authoritative living witness of the horrors of the Shoah among the survivors of the Nazi concentration camps”.[1] But is he really a witness?

Is Elie Wiesel an impostor?

On 3 March 2009, a Hungarian website published an article entitled Még mindig kísérti a haláltábor (The extermination camp is still tempting)[2] and outlining important revelations by Miklós Grüner, a former deportee to Auschwitz. The article was translated and appeared the following day under the title Auschwitz Survivor Claims Elie Wiesel is an Impostor[3]. The text reads as follows: (Read more…)